just that, using a variety of formats, 828 roll film was an attempt to remove the
double sprocket holes to result in a more efficient use of the same width stock as
35mm, 110 was optimized to give 4x5 or 8x10 enlargements using the full frame thus
allowing for acceptable enlargements with a smaller film size. 126 was designed to
make loading a camera more efficient as well as providing a square format which was
extremely popular when it was introduced on, once again, film using stock the same width
as 35mm. All of these formats have two things in common, they were designed to have
certain optimal characteristics are dead or dying. If you look back at various formats
introduced by Kodak you will find all had something to recommend them. Some were in
use for a very long time but all except 35mm and 120/220 are virtually extinct. I'm
not sure how to measure it but on empirical evidence film formats have been in some
way optimized. It's just obvious how.
At 07:51 AM 1/20/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like
> film sizes in traditional film camera. In the traditional film, 35mm format
> is the most balanced design. If one want to go for better quality, you can
> have 645 or 67, while for more compactness we have the APS format. But 35mm
> format is still the most popular. Digital evolution will be the same.
> There is nothing to do with the pixel count.
You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never
optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope
manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck
with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket
holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this
very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for
indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact,
virtually the only film size that could be said to be either "designed" or
"evolved" is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the
existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers.
I fear that I do not have the trust in "intelligent evolution" that you do.
It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant
prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will
determine the eventual standardization of the technology.
--Mike
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
